What Does the Prosecution Need to Prove in a Robbery Case?
The crime of robbery is encoded in Section 211 of the California Penal Code. Under Section 211, the prosecution must demonstrate each criminal element with evidence.
The defendant took someone else’s property.
First, the prosecution must show that the defendant took property that did not belong to them. The defendant must have taken the property from the victim’s possession and immediate presence.
It is important to note that “possession” does not require physical control. It only requires control or the right to control the property in question. In fact, the victim does not even need to be the actual owner of the property, as long as they control the property and it is close enough that they can exercise physical control if they so choose. This is known as the “immediate presence” requirement.
For example, if a person is resting on a park bench and their bike is sitting a few feet away resting against a tree, the bike would be considered within their immediate presence.
The defendant took the property against the victim’s will.
If the alleged victim consents to the property being taken, it is obviously not robbery. So the prosecution must show that the victim did not freely and voluntarily allow the defendant to take the property.
The property was taken using fear or force.
In a robbery case, the prosecution must prove that the defendant used fear or force to take the property. This might include actual infliction of physical harm or the threat of physical harm (e.g., the brandishing of a gun or knife).
Furthermore, the victim does not have to be the subject of the fear or force. The fear or force could be directed at the victim’s family member or property. For example, if a person threatens to slash the tires on another person’s car unless the victim gives up their cellphone, that would be considered physical force.
The defendant deprived the victim of the property.
Finally, the prosecution must show that the defendant deprived the victim of the property. There is more to this element than it seems. The deprivation does not necessarily have to be permanent. It could be temporary. The only requirement is that it is sufficient to deprive the victim of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property.